February 17, 2017 Oral History Interview with Christopher Westdal

Digital Archive digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org International History Declassified February 17, 2017 Oral History Interview with Christopher Westdal Citation: “Oral History Interview with Christopher Westdal,” February 17, 2017, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, Contributed to NPIHP by Michal Onderco. https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/177553 Summary: Canada's Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva (1999-2003) Credits: This document was made possible with support from Carnegie Corporation of New York (CCNY). Original Language: English Contents: English Transcription Christopher Westdal Canada Oral history interview conducted by Michal Onderco by Skype on 17 February 2017 Michal Onderco: Okay, well, thank you very much for finding the time to talk to me and to, to discuss with me your participation in the 1995 NPT Review Conference. Chris Westdal: Okay, well, listen, I’d gladly speak with you, but I should explain the context. I was Canada’s Ambassador for Disarmament twice, once for a year, 1995 and in that year, I did the NPT Review Conference, and then later, 1999 to 2003, I was Canada’s Ambassador for Disarmament in Geneva to the Conference on Disarmament, to the First Committee, and to the NPT. So, I was present at both the 1995, and particularly, the 2000 NPT Conference. Among other things I find now that I haven’t thought about these things for decades intensely, that I mix up my memories of the two events. I just might want to ramble a bit about some memories, some of them, both because I think your ambit is quite broad, and you’re looking at how multilateralism works and so on. But when I look back without having refreshed my memory. I just haven’t had time to look back and read through those documents I mentioned, particularly those by Tariq Rauf, and I hope you’ll be able to speak to him and give him my best regards and read what he and Rebecca Johnson write about that and every other aspect of nuclear policy as you would know. I look on 2000 as the high point of at least rhetorical disarmament, the unequivocal, what was the term, unequivocal commitment, undertaking, unequivocal undertaking I think was the phrase, 13 steps which would have been quite dramatic had they happened. But if I recall, they began immediately with a comprehensive test ban treaty which has been in the ditch in Washington for decades now, but the point is in Clinton’s last few months, that was kind of a high point, and I think, motivating some of his officials might have been this notion of a legacy, but I think there was already an anticipation that government would change anyway. Regardless of what they thought was coming, that was the high point, and it was immediately obliterated by the arrival of George Bush and John Bolton and all of those who had no time whatever for any kind of multilateral verification, without which, none of those nuclear steps and trust is anyway possible. So, it was a high point. We’ve been descending since. I think at the moment we are in an alarming condition of nuclear escalation, but I won’t rehearse all that, but the announcement of a trillion dollars to renew the entire nuclear triad of the United States. Russia’s test of nuclear capable cruise missiles, possible violation of treaties, and the quite stunning Trump conversation with Putin when Putin say’s, well I think we should renew START and Trump interrupts the call either to ask what is START or to find out some detail about it. Twice during the campaign he referred to “START up.” One’s inclined to think that he had to pause the phone to be advised what is START about and that’s not so startling. It’s rocket science after all, but the point is he returned to the phone call to say no, that was a stupid deal. We’ve given everything away, the hell with that. So, with respect to the prospect for nuclear disarmament, we are going off the cliff at the moment. Have been for some time, but that’s a bit of an aside. It is only to underline that 2000 was the high point and that’s now 17 years ago. Thinking about my disarmament days, I recall a quotation interesting for someone in Holland. Are you Dutch? Michal Onderco: No, I’m not Dutch, actually. I’m born in Slovakia and studied all over in Europe and now living in Holland. Chris Westdal: Understood, but -- oh the reason it was interesting for someone either Dutch or working with Dutchmen, is that I have recently taken to repeating a line. I used to use when I was Ambassador for Disarmament. It’s -- when you’re Ambassador for Disarmament, you are climbing straight up mountains. That’s understood, but I used to quote William the Silent, but William the Silent, a figure in Dutch history, said, “It is not necessary to be hopeful to persevere.” I think that is a profound -- there’s a liberation in that. It’s almost something to live by, but it is the point in nuclear disarmament. It doesn’t matter how hopeless you think the cause might be, it is our duty to persevere and to try to contain these dangers -- it is a disgrace to our civilization that for now seventy years, we’ve had in our basement a bomb ready to go off and end us all, and we seem to be a blind about it now. But the point is, hopelessness is a bit irrelevant, and that applies in our lives, too. I mean until the last afternoon, the deck chairs on the Titanic needed to be sorted out, and it was someone’s duty to arrange them. The people I have most respect for on the Titanic were the last guys bailing. In the sense that always, even though it’s hopeless, you do your duty, and we clearly have a duty to try to contain the dangers of nuclear arms. So, I remember that, and I’m reminded of it now, and it was my guiding principle when I worked in nuclear disarmament. Now, can I ramble on this way? Is it useful to you? Michal Onderco: It’s useful. I have a list of questions that I want to ask you, but you can either ramble on, and I’ll ask -- I’ll go to my questions later or I can start asking with my questions. Chris Westdal: I’ll only ramble on a bit longer to recall the 1995 event. When I think back to 1995, and the achievement of permanence with accountability, and when I remember how the P5 assured the world that they were bound by -- and their hawks were oh-so disturbed by Article 5 [6?] of the NPT that swore them to try to get rid of their arms. You could describe that as the height of hypocrisy in the history of the NPT. It’s clear in the phrase itself, permanence with accountability. There’s an element of contradiction right in that, in that if there is to be accountability, then how can there be permanence? So, I think that looking back at that meeting, it is surprising that the P5, whose fidelity to Article 6 was surely to be questioned, managed to persuade enough, beyond a majority, and then ultimately managed to have the extension without a vote. When you consider that there were many who were skeptical, even among their allies, that they were serious about Article 6, and when the chairman did not want an indefinite extension, and when others led by, I remember the South Africans, and there were groups whose names I might mix up, but at the end of the day… It’s the one thing, if my grandchildren ask me, what did I do? The only thing that’s -- the first thing that would be noted would be that the NPT was extended without a vote. I remember campaigning, I remember going to -- from Ottawa going to Geneva, going to Vienna, going to New York, and each of those places, our embassy would have gathered six or eight ambassadors of the countries that we were lobbying. There were quite a few of them, and then I remember in New York, going from mission to mission. I don’t know how many I went to, but it must have been scores, and some of those New York permanent representatives were very grateful to be consulted individually about a matter like nuclear affairs - that didn’t usually happen - and were grateful to be visited at their own quarters - which often didn’t happen, they’d meet instead in New York. And I remember from all of that, that personal relations count in multilateral meetings and events, particularly those that are dragged out where you have people working cheek by jowl for sometimes weeks on end, away from home, crazy hours. Sometimes the personal aspects get quite intense.. So, why don’t you go ahead with your questions. Michal Onderco: Okay. So, -- you already told me you were the Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament in 1995. What was, what was your portfolio before you became the CD Ambassador? Chris Westdal: Well, I came new entirely to disarmament. I had -- let me just say -- I have to think about that, in ‘95, I had been most recently Ambassador to South Africa. I was there when the South Africans renounced their nuclear weapons, but I didn’t know that I was going to become Ambassador for Disarmament, but it was relevant.

Load more